The ARTS, As a Universal Language

Tonight, we went with friends to our church to see an organ concert. But, it was more than the organ, it was also a Chamber orchestra, and solos on the violin, trumpet, and saxophone. All of these musicians were professionals, hired by local orchestras. And the concert was Free!

The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.

This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.

Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.

The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.

Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!

I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!

And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!

I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.

Is a Particular Language Universal?

Structuralists believe that language holds the structures of society together. These believe that the rules of grammer determine the meaning. But, others do not believe this to be so.

In free societies, I know that words can have many meanings, because we allow for vast experiences that "form" or "condition" the meaning of certain words. But, in societies where certain terms are considered "sacred" or significant in some other way, I wonder how diverse the views might be. Wouldn't there be a limitation to meaning of "sacred words"?

This got me thinking about the term, "marriage". "Marriage" is understood in our society as a contract, as it is a legal document that binds the parties together under voluntary consent. But, there might be more meaning given to this word, if one is prone to understand marriage in a sacred context.

Marriage, then becomes a covenant, because God becomes a party to the contract. Religions tend to structure society around these structural units. But, the way they understand them and whether they are voluntary, between equal parties, or whether they are even between two individuals will vary greatly depending on the cultural context and the religion's definitions.

The experience of the individual within different societies will determine whether there will be different understandings of terms in a given language. And religion determines whether this is a possibility.

The question then becomes for me; "Is the individual the primary source of "expression" and giftedness to society. Therefore society is a servant to the individual's needs?" Or, "Is society of primal significance in the conditioning of the individual and determines how the individual will "give back" to society? Therefore, the social structures are most important to protect for the individual's development?" I tend to believe that both are necessary, of course, but when social structures do not serve the individual in their innatedness, then it can lead to all kinds of dysfuntion. But, what is innate? How does the mind process the brain's stimuli?

I think the debate is held on the basis of a "Structuralist" or a "Functionalist" understanding of social structures or/and individuals.

A Side Note About Healthcare,

I heard last night and forgot to add, that the Healthcare plan is written in "conceptual language", according to Fox News. This legislation should be in legislative language, or legal language, so that later on down the road, those in power cannot interpret the legislation in the way they want, giving them an advantage and a lack of accountability.

Since our country is ruled by law, the way the law reads is cumbersome because it maintains an accountability to what it was to enforce. Whenever legalist use "open ended" language, then the courts have to determine how the law is to be enforced.

If legislation is done too tightly, then it leaves little room for negotiating real life conflicts with the market. But, if it is left too open ended, there is little use for it, except for those "in the know" to use it for their own ends.

What I Find Interesting in Language

As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.

I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.

Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.

Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.

Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.

Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.

I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.